steve2267 wrote:While we are yakking about E-M diagrams and Pee-sub-ess curves... does anyone have E-M doghouse plots for any Hornet or Rhino variants? The turn diagrams I found in some F/A-18C/D and E/F performance addendums seemed to have turn information, but I couldn't find any Ps data or curves. Something that could be overlaid on top of the Hellenic F-16C manual that's floating around out there would be interesting, as an intellectual exercise.

You can convert the information from the NATOPS turn rate charts on the F-18 into a a “doghouse plot”. I used to have some F-18C E-M diagrams saved. I will see if I can dig them up again. Working from an iPhone, the one most easily accessible is a simple comparison of the F-18E/F compared to the “C”. Not going to give any data on the Ps though.

steve2267 wrote:While we are yakking about E-M diagrams and Pee-sub-ess curves... does anyone have E-M doghouse plots for any Hornet or Rhino variants? The turn diagrams I found in some F/A-18C/D and E/F performance addendums seemed to have turn information, but I couldn't find any Ps data or curves. Something that could be overlaid on top of the Hellenic F-16C manual that's floating around out there would be interesting, as an intellectual exercise.

You can convert the information from the NATOPS turn rate charts on the F-18 into a a “doghouse plot”. I used to have some F-18C E-M diagrams saved. I will see if I can dig them up again. Working from an iPhone, the one most easily accessible is a simple comparison of the F-18E/F compared to the “C”. Not going to give any data on the Ps though.

Do those NATOPS turn rate charts include the information necessary to create the Ps isolines? I guess that was the biggest thing that left me scratching my head -- I couldn't find any Ps information. If it is not in the turn rate charts, do the NATOPS performance addendums (or the FM itself) have Ps data somewhere? (I'm drawing a blank.)

Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.

And I remember seeing those Ps curves, approximation or real data, back in the Falcon 4.0 manual nearly 20 years ago.

Note that the Ps curves aren't always available ; from what I remember of the F-15A and F/A-18E's NATOPS, you just get doghouse plots without any Ps curves, though obviously, you can draw the Ps=0 contour if you've got the curve for sustained turn rate vs speed.

BTW, has there ever been Ps curves at a constant g value in function of speed, like say when you're pulling 9G's in a horizontal turn from 0.9M to 0.7M ?

Saab Group is confident that its single-engine Gripen E remains a viable contender for Canada’s next generation fighter aircraft fleet, even though there are currently no immediate plans for Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) pilots to actually fly the aircraft.

The probability of Canada buying non-US fighter is 0.0. The probability of Canada not buying F-35 is also 0.0.

Oh well I guess there might be some PR effect of staying in the race?? Or are they gambling that the Canadian politicians are so upset with Boeing, Trump, LM and whatnot and therefore go for a non-US platform in spite of being an F-35 partner?

alphaxraylima wrote:I will stop as soon as someone actually provides a source of a F-16 turning like that with a similar load. That simple, I'm not going to stop just because someone starts throwing the word "gay" around, the complete opposite in fact. I have NEVER compared that Gripen video to a F-16 performing a level turn, going by the F-16C flight manual it would lose about 4000 ft trying to keep an average 21 degree turn rate for 13 seconds with a drag index of 100 and limited fuel (at sea level) and that is what I have been using as a comparison. If you think that is unfair that is fine, but as no one has been able to show any model F-16 turning like that, that is what we have to go on.

Allow me to clarify, and since you have no sense of humor whatsoever I'll try to keep it dry and to the point. Youtube videos are extremely subjective and in my experience raise far more questions than they ever answer. They tend to lead to bickering, forum warnings, they are basically unprofessional and they never tell the whole story. I would honestly trust a "my friends brothers uncle who works on BLANK say BLANK in combat will BLANK" than I do youtubes. I consider it very amateurish and frankly I don't bother with them. Even in me trying to say I don't bother with them, got me forum warnings so again I don't bother with them, nor do I consider them real evidence.

Flight manuals are nearly the exact opposite of youtube videos, being widely accepted and written accurately by professionals they are rarely subjective and spell out in boring black and white where the reality sits about aircraft performance in many conditions which is as others have said, highly variable depending on dozens of factors. typically the biggest error with flight manuals we see is "user/reader error"

I hope this has clarified why myself and many others here, don't play the youtube game, because no one wins, and its only makes things worse.

loke wrote:Amazing, Saab seems to keep Gripen E in the competition in Canada.

Saab Group is confident that its single-engine Gripen E remains a viable contender for Canada’s next generation fighter aircraft fleet, even though there are currently no immediate plans for Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) pilots to actually fly the aircraft.

The probability of Canada buying non-US fighter is 0.0. The probability of Canada not buying F-35 is also 0.0.

Oh well I guess there might be some PR effect of staying in the race?? Or are they gambling that the Canadian politicians are so upset with Boeing, Trump, LM and whatnot and therefore go for a non-US platform in spite of being an F-35 partner?

Moseying around the interrabble it may seem so for the Gripping E pit of many you know poppy wots:

"...The proposed "NG" models of the Gripen, the E and F, will likely adapt a similar single large touchscreen as utilized by the F-35. Again, it eschews a traditional HUD in favor of a helmet mounted display. Without a doubt, this is where fighter cockpit design is going...." http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.com/ ... kpits.html

OK I said above it was probably Poppycock but hey wot do I care because this ANGlish Brazzy Website probably is true:

"...Proposed system, called Cockpit NG, includes a WAD (Wide Area Display), one Helmet Mounted Display (Targo), that incorporate some symbols and images very similar to HUD (Head Up Display) and high capacity computers for processing and images. Time for SAAB presents the study results is unknown by DefesaNet. Currently only the american fighter Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has a Wide Area Display. http://www.defesanet.com.br/gripenbrazi ... EXCLUSIVE-–-GRIPEN-NG-will-have--Wide-Display-/ OR https://tinyurl.com/ybvo6vok